|
Affleck and Thurman had absolutely no chemistry whatsoever. It's a total void. Reminds me of State Of Play where I didn't buy him and Crowe as old buddies for a second.
|
#
?
May 13, 2018 08:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 21:37 |
|
|
Big Bad Voodoo Lou posted:You reminded me how much I loved the Assault on Precinct 13 remake with Ethan Hawke as the cop and Laurence Fishburne as the gangster who helps everyone survive the night. I haven't seen that remake. I tend to conflate it in my mind with the remake of The Taking of Pelham One Two Three from around the same time, which I believe had Denzel Washington in the Walter Matthau role (I don't remember who played the Robert Shaw part from the original). It's decent but the original one from 1974 is basically perfect.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2018 11:03
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:I haven't seen that remake. I tend to conflate it in my mind with the remake of The Taking of Pelham One Two Three from around the same time, which I believe had Denzel Washington in the Walter Matthau role (I don't remember who played the Robert Shaw part from the original). It's decent but the original one from 1974 is basically perfect. Travolta. I've never seen that remake, but the original Taking of Pelham One Two Three IS perfect, and amazingly modern-feeling. It is paced so much more like a modern action thriller than a movie from the '70s. Great jazzy soundtrack, too. For a while, the theme was recycled in Southern Comfort liquor commercials!
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2018 15:11
|
|
|
What's the consensus on Scott Adkins? I'm kinda torn on him. On one hand, he's super physically talented. For sure, dude can rock faces off. On the other, I really don't like him as a main lead. I don't know why, but something about him just makes me see him as more of a villainous dude. Maybe it's the constant glare that I don't like, I dunno. I watched him in that Vietnam movie, and while he destroyed major amounts of bad dude face, he seemed totally unpleasant to me the entire time. Plus, he eats a dude's kidney. Which normally, I'd see as cool, but when he does it, for some reason, it seemed pretty hosed. Maybe him as Guyver type character or Snake-eyes where he doesn't need to show his face would be ideal for me. Or him as a right hand bad dude. How off base am I?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2018 20:39
|
|
|
Adkins has always come across to me as, like, an even poorer man's Adrian Paul (who is already himself like a poor man's ... something).
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2018 20:41
|
|
|
Narzack posted:What's the consensus on Scott Adkins? I'm kinda torn on him. On one hand, he's super physically talented. For sure, dude can rock faces off. On the other, I really don't like him as a main lead. I don't know why, but something about him just makes me see him as more of a villainous dude. Maybe it's the constant glare that I don't like, I dunno. I watched him in that Vietnam movie, and while he destroyed major amounts of bad dude face, he seemed totally unpleasant to me the entire time. Plus, he eats a dude's kidney. Which normally, I'd see as cool, but when he does it, for some reason, it seemed pretty hosed. I feel like Savage Dog is kind of a bad example because he deliberately plays kinda darker than usual in it.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2018 21:01
|
|
|
Timby posted:Adkins has always come across to me as, like, an even poorer man's Adrian Paul (who is already himself like a poor man's ... something). This is way higher praise than Adrian Paul deserves.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2018 21:18
|
|
|
Adkins is this generation's Gary Daniels
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2018 21:19
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:This is way higher praise than Adrian Paul deserves. You maniac, Highlander ruled. Davros1 posted:Adkins is this generation's Gary Daniels Yeah, he kinda is. But Adkins hasn't been in an awesome Jackie Chan movie, yet.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2018 21:20
|
|
|
Narzack posted:You maniac, Highlander ruled. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvS1BdiVC7o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWkPBt_qgu8
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2018 21:32
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypyvcfnu4Gg
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2018 22:39
|
|
|
The Debt Collector was dire.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 00:00
|
|
|
I thought Adkins was pretty good at being somewhat funny in Accident Man even though the writing was way too tryhard edgy bad Guy Ritchie imitation.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 01:04
|
|
|
Assassination is on netflix and its better than any American action movie to come out this decade. The Koreans have done it again
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 03:35
|
|
Narzack posted:What's the consensus on Scott Adkins? I'm kinda torn on him. On one hand, he's super physically talented. For sure, dude can rock faces off. On the other, I really don't like him as a main lead. I don't know why, but something about him just makes me see him as more of a villainous dude. Yeah Adkins is not always the strongest actor* but he can glower like a boss, there's a reason Yuri Boyka was his breakout role. I'm in the middle of Close Range because it's the only Florentine/Adkins joint on Netflix I haven't seen yet, and they use this quite cleverly - the film starts with a glowering Adkins murdering his way through a police station in a classic "introduce the bad guy" moment and then it turns out the cops are all bent and he's the good guy, there to rescue his niece who they've kidnapped. Also when the gently caress is Triple Threat coming out already *he was very good in Day of Reckoning imo Clipperton fucked around with this message at 05:04 on May 14, 2018 |
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 05:02
|
|
|
Clipperton posted:Yeah Adkins is not always the strongest actor* but he can glower like a boss, there's a reason Yuri Boyka was his breakout role. Who cares about acting in the type of movies Adkins is in? Sure, it’d be nice but it wholly secondary to his athleticism
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 05:07
|
|
|
As a Highlander defender who wonders why Adrian Paul wasn't more successful, the comparison makes little sense. Scott Adkins is a guy who was born too late to be an "action star" when that was still a concept that existed in Hollywood, and thank God we have him now.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 15:18
|
|
|
He's very good in the Undisputed and Universal Soldiers movies that he did, I also thought he was solid in Savage Dog. He's definitely kinda boring when he isn't given much to work with but he never phones in his physical performance, which is the important part.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 15:35
|
|
sponges posted:Who cares about acting in the type of movies Adkins is in? Sure, it’d be nice but it wholly secondary to his athleticism Oh absolutely, and on top of that I'm willing to cut the acting in these movies a ton of slack. They're shot in 3 weeks and every extra take of a dramatic bit is a half hour you don't get to spend on a fight scene. I think Adkins is a good actor, but some roles (brooding loner) are more in his wheelhouse than others (the straightforwardly heroic stuff) which might be why Narzack doesn't see him as a leading man. That said I haven't seen Accident Man yet and I'm looking forward to seeing how he does there.
|
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 16:29
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:As a Highlander defender who wonders why Adrian Paul wasn't more successful, the comparison makes little sense. Scott Adkins is a guy who was born too late to be an "action star" when that was still a concept that existed in Hollywood, and thank God we have him now. I'm curious when you think the "action star" died out and why? Would it be stuff like non-action guys - "real actors" like Nicolas Cage and Liam Neeson, I suppose - started doing loads of action movies, for instance?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 17:06
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:I'm curious when you think the "action star" died out and why? Would it be stuff like non-action guys - "real actors" like Nicolas Cage and Liam Neeson, I suppose - started doing loads of action movies, for instance? If no one else, between The Matrix and John Wick, Keanu has been carrying that torch for a long while.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 17:11
|
|
Fart City posted:If no one else, between The Matrix and John Wick, Keanu has been carrying that torch for a long while. I will not abide this Statham erasure
|
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 17:21
|
|
|
Fart City posted:If no one else, between The Matrix and John Wick, Keanu has been carrying that torch for a long while. Keanu is a borderline case, because he's so well known for action movies but he's also just an actor. As in, he's made plenty of money in his career being in other types of movies aside from just action. And I'd argue that uber-stars like Arnold and Stallone transcended that label too, especially Stallone who began his career as a serious writer and actor. The true template for "80's action star" for me are the guys who never had any talent to do anything else, like Seagal or Lundgren or Michael Dudikoff. Clipperton posted:I will not abide this Statham erasure He erased himself by joining up with the F&F franchise and making a horrific Mechanic sequel. He hasn't really been in the leading man spotlight for a while, maybe Deckard & Shaw will change that.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 17:22
|
|
|
I was going to ask about Statham branching out into non-action roles but it occurs to me that he got started by appearing in Guy Ritchie movies where his role is to be a snarky wide boy far more than it is to break out the karate. Remember when he had long hair in Revolver? That was kind of strange.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 17:32
|
|
Basebf555 posted:He erased himself by joining up with the F&F franchise and making a horrific Mechanic sequel. He hasn't really been in the leading man spotlight for a while, maybe Deckard & Shaw will change that. Plane shootout in FF8 was dope, so was the prison break. Resurrection was less dope but the pool assassination ruled. I don't think they justify retroactively removing Jason Statham: Action Star from movie history
|
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 17:35
|
|
|
Clipperton posted:Plane shootout in FF8 was dope, so was the prison break. Resurrection was less dope but the pool assassination ruled. I don't think they justify retroactively removing Jason Statham: Action Star from movie history Movie history? No of course not, he's one of my all-time favorites. He just hasn't really been around much in lead roles recently(since like 2012) so his status as "action star" is now in question. Maybe Meg will bring that back a bit but it's also possible it sinks him even further.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 17:38
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Movie history? No of course not, he's one of my all-time favorites. He just hasn't really been around much in lead roles recently(since like 2012) so his status as "action star" is now in question. Maybe Meg will bring that back a bit but it's also possible it sinks him even further. God I have my fingers crossed for The Meg so hard
|
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 17:39
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:I'm curious when you think the "action star" died out and why? Would it be stuff like non-action guys - "real actors" like Nicolas Cage and Liam Neeson, I suppose - started doing loads of action movies, for instance? Nailing down what constitutes an action star isn't easy, and I'm not pretending there's a clearly defined category. But I think that you used to see a class of actor that was known primarily or totally for action films, and that this faded when filmmakers realized that they could put a credible actor (or a hot commodity) in an action role and make up for any shortcomings with a combination of cinematography and crash-course preparation. Other posters are already drawing divisions in different kind of action stars, so. The way I see it, you had actors who evolved along with the "action movie" as a genre, who had been typecast in war movies, Westerns, and crime films, and who fell into the role--like Clint Eastwood and Charles Bronson. Later, you saw people who got into acting to capitalize on their success as athletes--not just martial arts, but bodybuilding and football and some others. (Of course, there was a martial arts industry in Hong Kong years before Warn Bros. produced Enter the Dragon.) There are still actors who are branded as action stars because it's the genre where they got their break--Stallone and Gibson for sure, and later Crowe and Statham. (It's pretty common for this sort of actor to have an athletic background, but nobody really cares that Statham was a diving champion the way they cared about Chuck Norris and Gary Daniels being champion kickboxers--yet it's a good sign that he can handle the physical demands of the roles he plays.)
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 17:54
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:The rise of superhero movies may have played a role as well. I think this is a valid argument, but I also think it could be argued that superhero movies have essentially filled the space left after the action star boom of the late 80’s-mid 90’s faded. Hell, I’d say it kind of started with The Matrix. Over the past fifteen years or so action movies have become more and more genre-y. Even the Bourne movies dip their toes into supersoldier territory (Legacy in particular). F&F, John Wick, and Taken kind of stand out as being more traditional, but even Wick takes place in a highly-stylized, comic book-esque reality.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 18:04
|
|
|
Keanu was fantastic in Street Kings and I wish that movie got more love.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 18:11
|
|
I've been reading A History of Violence, the action movie column in The AV Club (yes I know) where Tom Breihan goes through the most "important" action movie of every year since 1968 and Bullitt. It's all a bit arbitrary (I'm not sure he ever completely nails down a definition of "action movie", and he uses "important" very flexibly) but it's a fun read. His approach is less "in-depth analysis" than "holy poo poo that was cool", which is great because it's mine too  Here they all are for easy reference (fair warning, he's a big Donnie Yen fanboy and I know some posters itt consider him Hong Kong Hitler): 1968: Bullitt 1969: The Wild Bunch 1970: The Chinese Boxer 1971: Dirty Harry 1972: The Way of the Dragon 1973: Enter the Dragon 1974: Death Wish 1975: Dolemite 1976: Assault on Precinct 13 1977: Rolling Thunder 1978: The Driver 1979: The Warriors 1980: The Octagon 1981: Raiders of the Lost Ark 1982: First Blood 1983: Project A 1984: The Terminator 1985: Rambo: First Blood Part II 1986: Aliens 1987: Lethal Weapon 1988: Die Hard 1989: The Killer 1990: Total Recall 1991: Terminator 2 1992: Hard Boiled 1993: The Fugitive 1994: Speed 1995: Bad Boys 1996: The Rock 1997: Face/Off 1998: Blade 1999: The Matrix 2000: Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon 2001: The Fast & The Furious 2002: The Bourne Identity 2003: Kill Bill: Vol. 1 2004: The Bourne Supremacy 2005: Sha Po Lang (Kill Zone) 2006: Casino Royale 2007: 300 2008: Taken 2009: Universal Soldier: Regeneration 2010: The Man from Nowhere 2011: Fast Five 2012: The Raid 2013: Snowpiercer 2014: John Wick 2015: Mad Max: Fury Road 2016: SPL 2 (Kill Zone 2) 2017: Wolf Warrior 2
|
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 21:27
|
|
|
Yeah, that's a really good series. Like you said, it's not terribly in depth but they're good reads and mentioned some films I hadn't seen yet. I think they're doing a romantic films version of the feature currently, too.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 21:34
|
|
|
LMAO this is the dumbshit who compared 300 to Birth of a Nation and called Raiders of the Lost Ark "silly". Unless you're really bored and want to read a stupid guy's surface level thoughts on movies, avoid this dude.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 21:58
|
|
|
300 is gross and the word 'silly' isn't anywhere in that review. "Surface level" I agree with
|
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 22:02
|
|
|
Clipperton posted:300 is gross and the word 'silly' isn't anywhere in that review. "Surface level" I agree with 300 is supposed to be gross. Birth of a Nation is not. Regarding Raiders, I assume you just searched on the word? quote:Great cases could be made for all three movies, but Raiders gets the nod for a few key reasons. It’s the biggest, fastest, silliest movie of the three, and size, speed, and silliness would all be important qualities in the ’80s action movies that would follow. A way better use of your time is to just watch every movie on that list and form your own thoughts. Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 22:13 on May 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 22:11
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:LMAO this is the dumbshit who compared 300 to Birth of a Nation and called Raiders of the Lost Ark "silly". Unless you're really bored and want to read a stupid guy's surface level thoughts on movies, avoid this dude. I've glanced at his Rolling Thunder, Project A and SPL reviews and they all seem fine?  a dude having a couple opinions you don't agree with doesn't equate to him being a stupid idiot
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 22:14
|
|
|
LORD OF BOOTY posted:I've glanced at his Rolling Thunder, Project A and SPL reviews and they all seem fine? Literally every time he tries to tie these action films into a larger context he's way beyond his depth. He's very good at writing Leonard Maltin movie guide-level synopsises of film, but that's about it. Edit: Softened up the language because the dude really doesn't deserve the level of animosity I'm bringing. But he pales next to OutlawVern or (yeah yeah I know) Ebert - who could appreciate a good action film. Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 22:23 on May 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 22:17
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Regarding Raiders, I assume you just searched on the word? it has a nazi monkey, that's pretty sillyi mean he's not calling it stupid, he talks about its "visual wit"
|
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 22:21
|
|
|
he mentions that Rolling Thunder was the first major time that a Hollywood action movie really grappled with the horror of Vietnam, and ended up setting a tone for future depictions of the war and its veterans, which... seems fair (First Blood doesn't happen without Rolling Thunder, basically) he says that, while Jackie Chan had made awesome poo poo prior to Project A, that movie pretty much marks the codification of his style, which again... yeah, seems fair (I would have said Wheels on Meals but apparently that came out the year after Project A) he says that SPL was where action cinema finally figured out how to use MMA, which... yeah, again, can't really argue maybe he's got other dumb opinions but the ones I've skimmed seriously all seem basically fair, even if they're not really ultra-hot takes
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 22:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 21:37 |
|
|
Clipperton posted:
Yes, when you describe things that aren't in the movie, it does sound very silly
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 22:33
|
|